DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is not clear how many unit cycles processes have to be performed. Parent claim 10 requires that the unit cycle process is performed multiple times but claim 11 discloses that the unit cycle process is performed once. For the purposes of this examination claim 11 will be taken to require that a precursor supply operation is performed multiple times during each unit cycle process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conley, Jr (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0213598).
In the case of claim 10, Conley, Jr teaches a method for forming a thin film by atomic layer deposition using microwave annealing (Abstract). The method comprised positioning a substrate/wafer 104 in a chamber 101 and supplying a precursor into the chamber which was adsorbed onto the surface of the substrate 104 followed by a first purge of the chamber (Page 3 Paragraphs 0035-0036). Conley, Jr further teaches having conducted a microwave annealing operation wherein microwaves were irradiated into the chamber and the microwaves interacted with the precursor on the substrate surface (Page 3 Paragraph 0038). The microwaves caused local heating of the precursor by causing the formation of dipoles with polar groups/ligands in the precursor material (Pages 1 Paragraph 0016 through Page 2 Paragraph 0018). Conley, Jr further teaches a reactant supply operation wherein a reactant/second precursor was supplied into the chamber which reacted with the adsorbed precursor followed by a second purging of the chamber (Page 3 Paragraph 0037). Furthermore, Conley, Jr teaches an embodiment wherein the taught steps are a part of a unit cycle process performed multiple times wherein the order of the unit cycle process comprised supplying a precursor operation/block 501, purging the precursor operation/block 502, supplying a reactant operation/block 503, purging the reactant operation/block 504 and a microwave annealing operation/block 505 (Page 4 Paragraphs 0046-0048 and Figure 6).
As for claim 11, Conley, Jr teaches a unit cycle process wherein the deposition/supplying of a precursor was performed multiple times prior to the microwave annealing operation (page 3 Paragraph 0040).
As for claims 12 through 14, Conley, Jr teaches that the microwave annealing was a selective annealing wherein heating by microwave irradiation only occurred in the film/precursor material which involved vibrating ligands/groups in the precursor through the creation of dipoles Page 1 Paragraph 0015 through Page 2 Paragraph 0018). Furthermore, Conley, Jr teaches that the precursor comprised a central metal atom and at least one ligand bound to the central atom (Pages 2-3 Paragraph 0034).
As for claim 15, Conley, Jr teaches loading operation wherein the substrate 104 is loaded/placed into a chamber 101 (Page 3 Paragraph 0035) and an unloading operation wherein the substrate is removed from the chamber once a desired film thickness is reached (Page 4 Paragraph 0047).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0189146) in view of Conley, Jr.
In the case of claim 1, Noh teaches a method for forming a thin film by selective deposition (Abstract). The method of Noh comprised supplying a precursor to a substrate wherein the precursor selectively adsorbed onto a partial region of the surface of the substrate by not depositing onto all of the substrate surface (Page 9 Paragraph 0130) followed by supplying a reactant to react with the deposited/adsorbed precursor to form a thin film unit (Page 9 Paragraph 0131).
Noh does not teach having performed a region-selective annealing step by irradiating microwaves onto the substrate surface which locally heated the adsorbed precursor by inducing vibrations in at least a portion of the precursor. However, Noh does teach that the formation process was an atomic layer deposition process (Page 9 Paragraph 0132) and that the precursor comprised a metal core atom bounded to at least one ligand (Abstract).
Conley, Jr teaches a method for forming a thin film by atomic layer deposition using microwave annealing (Abstract). The method comprised positioning a substrate/wafer 104 in a chamber 101 and supplying a precursor into the chamber which was adsorbed onto the surface of the substrate 104 followed by a first purge of the chamber (Page 3 Paragraphs 0035-0036). Conley, Jr further teaches having conducted a microwave annealing operation wherein microwaves were irradiated into the chamber and the microwaves interacted with the precursor on the substrate surface (Page 3 Paragraph 0038). The microwaves caused local heating of the precursor by causing the formation of dipoles with polar groups/ligands in the precursor material (Pages 1 Paragraph 0016 through Page 2 Paragraph 0018). Conley, Jr further teaches a reactant supply operation wherein a reactant/second precursor was supplied into the chamber which reacted with the adsorbed precursor followed by a second purging of the chamber (Page 3 Paragraph 0037). Furthermore, Conley, Jr teaches an embodiment wherein the taught steps are a part of a unit cycle process performed multiple times wherein the order of the unit cycle process comprised supplying a precursor operation/block 501, purging the precursor operation/block 502, supplying a reactant operation/block 503, purging the reactant operation/block 504 and a microwave annealing operation/block 505 (Page 4 Paragraphs 0046-0048 and Figure 6).
Conley, Jr teaches that the microwave annealing removed unreacted ligands from the adsorbed precursor thereby increasing the density of the formed films and improving the electronic properties of the film (Page 2 Paragraph 0018 and Page 3 Paragraph 0039).
Based on the teachings of Conley, Jr, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed microwave annealing as taught by Conley, Jr after the precursor deposition step of Noh in order to remove unreacted ligands and improve the density and electronic properties of the formed film.
As for claims 2-5, the precursor of Noh was a monomer precursor comprised of a central metal atom bounded to an ionic/anionic ligand L (Abstract and Pages 5-6 Paragraphs 0095-0098).
As for claim 6, Conley, Jr teaches that the microwaves had a frequency of 915 MHz to 24.125 GHz (Page 2 Paragraph 0033) of 0.915 GHz to 24.125 GHz which was within the claimed range of about 0.3 GHz to about 300 GHz.
As for claim 7, Noh teaches having performed separate purge steps for removing excess precursor and excess reactant (Page 10 Paragraphs 0139-0140).
As for claim 8, Noh teaches an embodiment wherein exposing the substrate to a vapor/precursor was conducted in a step c) which was repeated at a plurality of times prior to exposing the substrate to a co-reactant after step c) (Page 9 Paragraph 0130).
As for claim 9, as was discussed previously, the process of Noh in view of Conley, Jr comprised performing the annealing prior to supplying the reactant.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al (U.S. Patent # 11,139,242) in view of Conley, Jr.
In the case of claims 16 and 18, Xie teaches a methos for manufacturing a semiconductor device in the form of an integrated chip (Abstract). The method comprised forming a lower film comprised of a vertical conductive pattern in the form of metal lines 902 and a supporting pattern in the form of layer 104 supporting the vertical conductive pattern 902 (Column 6 Lines 1-13 and Figure 6). Xie further teaches having formed an upper film/dielectric film 1002 on the lower film (902, 104) by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process (Column 6 Lines 24-32 and Figure 10). Furthermore, on the dielectric/upper film an upper electrode in the form of metal layer 1402 was formed (Column 7 Lines 15-26 and Figure 14).
Xie does not teach that the upper film/dielectric film was formed by repeatedly performing a unit cycle process wherein a precursor was supplied followed by a region-selective annealing operation of irradiating microwaves to induce vibrations in the precursor followed by supplying a reactant. However, as was discussed previously, the upper film/dielectric film of Xie was formed by ALD.
Conley, Jr teaches a method for forming a thin film by atomic layer deposition using microwave annealing (Abstract). The method comprised positioning a substrate/wafer 104 in a chamber 101 and supplying a precursor into the chamber which was adsorbed onto the surface of the substrate 104 followed by a first purge of the chamber (Page 3 Paragraphs 0035-0036). Conley, Jr further teaches having conducted a microwave annealing operation wherein microwaves were irradiated into the chamber and the microwaves interacted with the precursor on the substrate surface (Page 3 Paragraph 0038). The microwaves caused local heating of the precursor by causing the formation of dipoles with polar groups/ligands in the precursor material (Pages 1 Paragraph 0016 through Page 2 Paragraph 0018). Conley, Jr further teaches a reactant supply operation wherein a reactant/second precursor was supplied into the chamber which reacted with the adsorbed precursor followed by a second purging of the chamber (Page 3 Paragraph 0037). Furthermore, Conley, Jr teaches an embodiment wherein the taught steps are a part of a unit cycle process performed multiple times wherein the order of the unit cycle process comprised supplying a precursor operation/block 501, purging the precursor operation/block 502, supplying a reactant operation/block 503, purging the reactant operation/block 504 and a microwave annealing operation/block 505 (Page 4 Paragraphs 0046-0048 and Figure 6).
Conley, Jr teaches that the microwave annealing removed unreacted ligands from the adsorbed precursor thereby increasing the density of the formed films and improving the electronic properties of the film (Page 2 Paragraph 0018 and Page 3 Paragraph 0039) wherein the improved electronic properties included the dielectric constant (Page 1 Paragraph 0011)..
Based on the teachings of Conley, Jr, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the ALD process of Conley, Jr to form the upper film/dielectric film of Xie because Conley, Jr taught a known ALD process in the art which formed a film with improved density and electronic/dielectric properties.
As for claim 17, Conley, Jr teaches that the precursor comprised a monomer of a central atom bounded to a least one ligand (Pages 2-3 Paragraph 0034).
As for claims 19 and 20, as was discussed previously, the process of Xie in view of Conley, Jr deposited a dielectric by atomic layer deposition onto a lower film. Xie further teaches that the lower film comprised a support pattern/layer 104 which was a dielectric material (Column 3 Lines 51-60) and that the vertical conductive pattern 902 was a metal (Column 6 Lines 1-13).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vaartstra (U.S. Patent # 7,374,617) teaches a vapor deposition process wherein precursor which had been adsorbed onto a substrate surface was annealed by irradiating microwaves onto the substrate.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 20 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights